2014No1279 Performance of Official Duties

A

Defendant

Kim Jong-Un (Court Prosecution), Park Jong-il (Court Trial)

Daegu District Court Decision 2014Gohap302 Decided April 23, 2014

January 16, 2015

The lower judgment is reversed. The Defendant is not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The punishment of the lower court (one million won with prison labor) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant, along with B, was on board the C-A-Wur-Wur-Wur-Wur-Wor-Wor-Wor-Wor-Wor-Wor-Wor-Wor-Wor-Wor-Wor-Wor-Wor-Wor-Wor

Around 01:40 on October 8, 2013, the Defendant and B stopped a car at the end of the wall of the 7516 unit outer wall located in the north-ri, and moved from the car to the ward in the direction of the ward. B followed by the Defendant, and the Defendant was on the roof of the ward (4.5cm in total length) by attaching a string to the storm (4.5cm in possession) in his possession. Accordingly, at the time of an emergency, the Defendant and B got off the ward D who had been on duty to listen to the explosion and report it to the upper part, and sent a boundary attitude, such as sending five minutes of battles and information analysis tanks inside the military unit. Accordingly, the Defendant in collusion with B interfered with the military unit and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties in the ward.

B. The judgment of the court below

The lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case.

C. Judgment of the court below

(1) The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means is established in cases where the other party misleads the other party, misleads the other party, or makes him/her a wrong act or disposition with regard to a legitimate duty delegated by the law by using the land in order to achieve the purpose of the act, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant. The crime of obstruction of official duties by fraudulent means is established in cases of the crime of obstruction of official duties by fraudulent means. It means that the other party misleads the other party, misleads the other party, makes him/her a land, and uses the land in order to achieve the purpose of the act by fraudulent means, and the other party must make the wrong act or disposition.

(2) In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant: (a) while operating a car with a passenger car after a university; (b) discovered the remaining storm bombomb in the vehicle; and (c) told the Defendant to leave the above storm bomb as a nearby unit when she was out of the front line; (b) accordingly, the Defendant: (c) on October 8, 2013, at around 01:40, the 4 major external wall of the 7516 unit in North Korea, stopped the car at the front line; (d) on the front line of the 4 major external wall of the 7516 unit in North Korea; and (e) on the front line of the 5th unit, the Defendant was out of the front line of the bomb (4.5m in total length); and (e) on the front line of the 5th unit of the bombomb, the Defendant reported the emergency bombombomb to the front line of the bom and the front.

(3) We first examine whether a “defensive scheme” existed. The duty of the guard of the post-defensive unit is to observe the military unit by monitoring not only enemy attack but also all acts that threaten the safety of the military unit, including unauthorized access by the neighboring civilians. The Defendant’s act of administering a large brut to the post-defensive unit constitutes an attack against the duty of the boundary soldier to observe the military unit, which constitutes an actual situation where the boundary soldier is to cope with, i.e., an attack against the duty of the military unit. As long as the situation where the boundary soldier was to cope with is actually discovered, even if the boundary soldier did not accurately grasp about the emergency or scale of the situation, it cannot be said that the boundary soldier misleads the police officer as to the occurrence of an emergency.

Furthermore, we examine whether a military official’s act committed a wrong act or disposition with regard to his duties, i.e., a failure to obstruct the performance of duties of a public official, or caused a danger that may interfere with the performance of duties of a public official. A security soldier’s duty is to report to his superior if he considers that an emergency situation has occurred, and his superior’s duty is to cope with a false act or disposition after identifying the situation by inserting an information analysis and five minutes combat atmosphere. In this case, although a five-minute combat attack or an information analysis protocol is not a serious issue to be called out, it constitutes a duty to grasp the degree of emergency situation and cope with it. Thus, it cannot be deemed that a military official working in a military unit is a military officer’s duty to grasp the degree of emergency situation and to cope with it. Thus, it cannot be deemed that a search at the scene of a

(4) Therefore, in light of the legal principles of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive means as seen earlier, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows, after pleading.The facts charged in this case are as stated in Article 2-1(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime as stated in Article 2-2(c) of the above Act, and thus, it is decided as per Disposition by the latter part of Article 325 of the

The names of judges of the presiding judge.

Judges Park Sung-sung

Judges Laos